[138064] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Sun Feb 27 20:57:42 2011
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 27 Feb 2011 17:34:21 -0800."
<20110228013421.GA32758@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:57:22 +1100
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In message <20110228013421.GA32758@ussenterprise.ufp.org>, Leo Bicknell writes:
> In a message written on Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 09:39:24AM +1100, Mark Andrews=
> wrote:
> > Have you *asked* your vendors for a alternate solution?
> >=20
> > DHCP kills privacy addresses.
> > DHCP kills CGAs.
>
> Not true.
>
> Some would like to use DHCPv6 to hand a host things like DNS servers,
> NTP servers, PXE boot information, domain name search paths, and
> the like.
And you can do most of that without requiring DHCP for addresses.
PXE boot may be the exception.
> There's no reason once the host gets a DHCP address and
> that information it can't also generate and use a privacy address
> or CGA.
Except in the senarios being described they are also blocking the
other addresses. I would also think setting the "M" bit would
prelude the host from generating such addresses as they are unmanaged.
> While this thread has focused on folks who want to use DHCPv6 to
> preclude these items by for instance having switches and routers
> filtered to only the "allowed" address (assigned via DHCP) there's
> no requirement a network operator do that.
>
> DHCP has a couple of hundred defined options. Vendors have tried
> adding ONE to the RA protocol (DNS servers) as replacement
> functionality. That leaves them a few hundred options short, in
> my book.
Which is what the O bit was for.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
